- CARSON CITY, Nev.
- In a 5-2 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police
can hide electronic monitoring devices on peoples' cars - without a warrant
and for as long as they want.
-
- The majority opinion, written by Justice Deborah Agosti,
said that attaching the device to the bumper of a Las Vegas man's car to
track his movements "did not constitute an unreasonable search or
seizure under the Nevada Constitution."
-
- Frederick Osburn was sentenced in 2000 to up to 10 years
in prison after pleading guilty to open or gross lewdness, possession of
burglary tools and four counts of possession of child pornography.
-
- He appealed, arguing evidence against him should be barred
because it was based, in part, on information police were able to gather
from the electronic monitoring.
-
- Osburn said federal law may permit warrantless monitoring,
but asked for a finding that the Nevada Constitution provides greater protection.
-
- The majority cited a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
that there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it involves
the exterior of a car - especially in Osburn's case since the car was parked
on a public street.
-
- Justices Bob Rose and Cliff Young dissented, with Rose
writing that the majority ruling gives too much authority to police.
-
- "The police will be able to place a vehicle monitor
on any vehicle, for any reason, and leave it there for as long as they
want," Rose said. "There will be no requirement that the monitor
be used only when probable cause - or even a reasonable suspicion - is
shown, and there will be no time limit on how long the monitor will remain."
-
- He added that in some cases such devices "will be
used to continually monitor individuals only because law enforcement considers
them 'dirty.'"
-
- "In the future, innocent citizens, and perhaps elected
officials or even a police officer's girlfriend or boyfriend, will have
their whereabouts continually monitored simply because someone in law enforcement
decided to take such action," Rose said.
-
- In Osburn's case, he had been placed under surveillance
after police questioned him about a prowler call several weeks before his
arrest. The surveillance increased the week before the arrest after Osburn
was reported masturbating outside a home. After his arrest in September
1997, police searched his home and found child pornography.
-
- http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2002/apr/25/042510142.html
|
